Category Archives: Censorship

A controversial film that accuses the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of covering up the link between vaccines and rising autism rates has been pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival after its inclusion sparked outrage andopponents called it intellectually dishonest and propaganda.

A day after he defended the decision to screen the documentary Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe, festival co-founder Robert De Niro announced in a statement Saturday that he reversed course after reviewing the film with colleagues and experts.

My intent in screening this film was to provide an opportunity for conversation around an issue that is deeply personal to me and my family, the statement said. But after reviewing it over the past few days with the Tribeca Film Festival team and others from the scientific community, we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.

Deadline Hollywood reported that filmmakers have accused Tribeca officials of engaging in censorship.

To our dismay, we learned today about the Tribeca Film Festivals decision to reverse the official selection of Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe,' director Andrew Wakefield and producer Del Bigtree said.

It is our understanding that persons from an organization affiliated with the festival have made unspecified allegations against the film, the statement continued. We have just witnessed yet another example of the power of corporate interests censoring free speech, art, and truth. Tribecas action will not succeed in denying the world access to the truth behind the film Vaxxed.'

The film is directed and co-written by Wakefield, a polarizing anti-vaccination activist and onetime gastroenterologist whose medical license was revoked by Britains General Medical Council, according to CBS News. Wakefield is also the author of a widely discounted study published in the medical journal the Lancet, in 1998 that was retracted in 2010. Studies from the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine, the World Health Organization and the CDC have discredited the notion that a link exists between vaccines and developing autism spectrum disorder, according to the Huffington Post.

The substantial evidence explains why the decision to screen the film drew intense scrutiny from medical experts.

On Friday, De Niro released a statement explaining his decision to screen the film next month, but he noted that he was not personally endorsing the film and is not anti-vaccination.

Grace and I have a child with autism and we believe it is critical that all of the issues surrounding the causes of autism be openly discussed and examined, the statement said. In the 15 years since the Tribeca Film Festival was founded, I have never asked for a film to be screened or gotten involved in the programming.

However this is very personal to me and my family and I want there to be a discussion, which is why we will be screening the film, the statement added.

The statement set off a new round of debate on the festivals Facebook page, with users leaving thousands of heated comments.

Why shouldnt there be discussion around this? one commenter wrote. This is supposed to be a country of free speech.

To say that discussion has not been ongoing before this obvious bit of propaganda is screened is intellectually dishonest, another said. The discussion has been going on for decades and the answer has remained the same. There is no valid science that backs a vaccine-autism link. None.

To say that discussion has not been ongoing before this obvious bit of propaganda is screened is intellectually dishonest

A trailer for the film begins with ominous music and a single question:

Are our children safe?

Read this article:
Filmmakers accuse Robert De Niro of censorship after he ...

The Israeli Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan has unveiled plans to censor the Internets worldwide social media platforms with the building of an international coalition to counter criticism of Israel.

According to an article in the Times of Israel, Erdans plan calls for developing legislation in conjunction with European countries, most of which are very interested in this idea.

The legislation would have common features, such as defining what constitutes incitement and what the responsibilities of social networks regarding it are, a spokesman for the minister told the Israeli-based newspaper.

Companies that do not comply will find themselves hauled into court, paying a penalty, he added.

According to the plan, the participating countries would be part of a loose coalition that would keep an eye on content and where it was being posted, and members of the coalition would work to demand that the platforms remove the content that was posted in any of their countries at the request of members.

This is a perfectly logical and just project, Erdans spokesperson said. If a hotel was being used as a venue for a hate group, we would demand that the hotel break its contract, and we would lean on other hotels to abstain from hosting them, so that the hate group would not be able to hold its event. This is no different.

Although the Israelis are attempting to disguise the project as a counter to Palestinians posting violence promoting material on the Internet, it is clear that the extension of this coalition has a far wider scope.

Justifying the plan, Erdans office used an example of a Palestinian who allegedly posted up a body chart showing where the best places were to stab someone fatallyapparently a reference to the recent spate of knife attacks on Jews in Israel.

READ New Israeli Government Seeks to Seize West Bank Permanently

The number of postings of that nature are, however, tiny in comparison to the volume of material going up on the Internet, and there are already more than sufficient methods in place to deal with such incidents and get them removed.

Nonetheless, Erdans spokesman said the coalition would force the worlds leading social media giants to prevent their platforms from being abused to peddle incitement to terrorism.

The social media giants make millions but claim they are not responsible for content, and that they only provide a platform, a spokesperson for Erdan told the Times of Israel. That is not going to wash. We are planning to put a stop to this irresponsibility, and we are going to do it as part of an international coalition that has had enough of this behavior as well.

BreakingCensorshipFeaturedIsraelJewish HypocrisySocial Media

See the rest here:
Israel Demands World Internet Censorship - The New Observer

The Arango Orillac Building where the Mossack Fonseca law firm is situated at inPanama City. The absence of any prominent US institutions or citizens in the first list of names revealed by the ICIJ has spurred rumours ranging from a conspiracy to media bias. (REUTERS)

From China censoring its social media to the Kremlin alleging a CIA conspiracy, the Panama Papers revelations have caused major ripples through global powers, with implicated world leaders denying allegations of wrongdoing.

The Panama Papers on Monday brought to light the shadowy world of offshore companies and how the rich and the famous hide their wealth from public view, with its first list of names including heads of state, celebrities, prominent businessmen and football stars.

Spearheaded by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), and worked on by over 100 media organisations through the world, the leaks place a Panama-based law firm, Mossack Fonseca, at the centre of the tangled web of shell companies and paper trails.

However, the information, or the blank spaces in between, has led to sharp criticism on social media, with many commenting on the lack of US names or banks in the list. Conspiracy theorists allege a western plot to destabilise Russian president Vladimir Putin, while others raised more serious concerns of media bias.

Corporate media protecting the 1%?

The only direct US link to the Panama Papers so far is that of financial writer and life coach Marianna Olszewski - who allegedly employed a 90-year-old British man as a stand in to mask funds she had confidentially invested in an offshore company.

The lack of any prominent US citizen or institutions name appearing on the list - that too despite the ICIJ listing 617 middlemen that Mossack Fonseca worked with in the United States - has begun to attract conspiracy theories and criticism.

One of the most searing criticisms has been that of Craig Murray, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a prominent human rights figure.

In a blog post on Monday, Murray said that German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung had made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate media to publicise the results.

In consequence the first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent, Murray wrote.

But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective reporting is going to stink.

Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets of western corporations will remain unpublished.

Murray points to the US-based ICIJs funders as being a reason why no American politician or public figure has been named so far.

Their funders include the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, The Rockefeller Family Fund, the WK Kellogg Fund and the Open Society Foundation (Soros) - all significant (and significantly wealthy) industrial and corporate entities.

I know Russia and China are corrupt, you dont have to tell me that, writes Murray. What if you look at things that we might, here in the West, be able to rise up and do something about?

While Murrays points have more substance than, say, conspiracy theorists on social media, its more likely that no United States citizens have been named because of the sheer volume of data that needs to be analysed.

Nonetheless, questions about media bias have been raised onTwitter.

I'm not saying #Putin isn't guilty of any wrongdoing, I'm just pointing out the framing of the #PanamaPapers suggests a clear media bias.

World leaders actually named in the #PanamaPapers but Putin, who is NOT named, is used by all media covering story? pic.twitter.com/nthb26QtTE

These #Panama leaks don't mention Putin once. Yet MSM have somehow found him guilty of multiple crimes. Propaganda overload! ?? #BlamePutin

Read: Panama Papers: N Korea shell companies funding nuclear weapons surface

Its bullshit

Among the most high-profile names implicated in the leaks was Russian president Vladimir Putin. While the Russian leader was not directly named in the Panama Papers, some of his closest associates including Sergei Roldugin, godfather to Putins daughter Maria, and Yuri Kovalchuk, Bank Rossiyas biggest shareholder, were.

The leak exposes the offshore holdings of 12 current and former world leaders and reveals how associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin secretly shuffled as much as $2 billion through banks and shadow companies, the ICIJ wrote, while The Guardian on Monday led with how Putins closest friends had operated a network of companies and banks to allegedly create a slush fund for the former-KGB spy.

Read:Journalists working on Panama papers ex-CIA operative: Kremlin

Russia, unsurprisingly, has denied the allegations, with a spokesperson for the Kremlin saying that the leaks were a result of a CIA-backed anti-Putin campaign; a statement which has found vociferous support among Twitter users

Only very naive and stupid people open off-shore accounts in #Panama which is controlled by the CIA. #PanamaLeaks

.

Its obvious the main aim of this dump is our president in the context of parliamentary elections and, in the longer term, presidential elections... Its obvious the barbs of this attack are directed against our country and, personally, against our president, Dmitry Peskov said on Monday, according to RCB News.

The degree of Putinophobia has reached such a level that youre just not allowed to say good things about Russia or about Russias successes. The bad things that you have to talk about, Peskov added.

One of the few other Russian officials to address the sensational claims was Andrei Kostin, the head of state-owned banking giant VTB.

Mr. Putin was never involved. Its bullshit, Kostin said in an interview with Bloomberg on Monday.

Watch | The Panama Papers leak explained

Chinese censorship

Meanwhile, China also appears to be censoring social media posts about the Panama Papers leak which has named several members of Chinas elite, including President Xi Jinpings brother-in-law, Deng Jiagui.

The ICIJ shows Deng as having registered two companies in 2009; around about the same time that Jinping was rising in power.

An investigative report by Bloomberg News in 2012 revealed that Deng and his wife had hundreds of millions of dollars in real estate, share holdings and other assets.

Hundreds of posts on networks such as Sina Weibo and Wechat on the topic have been deleted since Monday morning.

The website Freeweibo.com, which actively tracks censorship on Weibo, listed Panama as the most censored term on the network.

The American angle

Given that the ICIJ has listed 617 middlemen in the US, it would be surprising, to say the least, if American figures were not linked to the growing scandal.

The law firm, which helped its clients (including firms subject to sanctions, such as in North Korea and Syria) set up offshore companies, came into the spotlight after more than 11 million of its internal files were leaked to German daily Suddeutsche Zeitung.

Zeitung then approached the ICIJ, which helped organise a 9-month long global investigation into the leaked files, the results of which were made public on Monday.

See the article here:
Censorship, CIA and no US citizens: Panama Papers ...

Comparison between the cut British DVD rated BBFC 12 and the uncut Australian DVD.

In November 2006 a new Bond movie was released. In spite of initial skepticism by the popular press and some fans, too, Daniel Craig could convince both critics and the audience in the graver and more serious Casino Royale, after the incredible stunts of his predecessor. Daniel Craigs introduction became the most successful Bond in history and topped Die Another Day easily.

The new toughness, rediscovered after Licence To Kill by the film makers, caused some problems for the movie, eventually leading to the release of 3 different versions of the movie in different parts of the world. While the previous movie only had a ridiculous and harmless sex scene being an overkill only for the USA, Casino Royale had a difficult time once again at its British home.

On the informative homepage of the British Censorship Board BBFC BBFC, whose censors were able to watch the movie prior to its premiere so that the movie makers could know how close they were to the desired "12 A" rating, one could learn about a torture scene which had to be cut for the English version.

It didnt take long to make clear that the cuts would be permanent for the English version of the movie, causing justified concerns that other countries would receive the same censored version. Fortunately that didnt happen. The censored version was only shown in English cinemas and was only released there on DVD. In Australia the scene remained intact.

The USA received a cut version of their own. There the torture scene turned out to be without difficulty for the important PG-13 rating but what usually is too much for Americans of this age bracket is realistic violence.

Exaggerated and cartoon-like violence hardly disturbs the MPAA or the American public than a realistic and matter-of-factly presented battle for life or death.

Of all things Casino Royale wanted to distinguish itself from the previous movies in that category in order to win back the adult audience which often doesnt like too much fantasy and extravagance in action movies anymore. Two scenes - the stylish black-and-white fight in the bathroom and the confrontation in the staircase - had to be mitigated considerably.

Interesting in this connection is that, besides the deletion of several scenes, there are some individual shots which are missing both in the English and in the Australian version. Whether these shots were deleted because of censorship reasons in the different countries or that they were added into the US version to compensate the deleted scenes (to get the desired PG-13 rating) and to keep the editing rhythm is unknown.

2 deleted und 1 alternative scenes in the English version with a total difference of 13 seconds.

Follow this link:
James Bond 007 - Casino Royale (2006) - Movie-Censorship.com

Provisional Irish oval censor handstamp in English only - used September 1939

The site now hosts an array of Civil Censorship and Military Mail information mostly related to World War II but adding material from other periods as collectors provide covers to show and as other information comes to hand.

Click on "What's New" to see latest additions

The British based Civil Censorship Study Group is now the foremost group studying civil censorship since it was started in 1972. It was founded to fill the gap between the two societies dealing with military mail and the AGZ that studied both military and civil mails

A wide range of examples are here for you to see the censorship and military mail items collectors like to included in their collection

Current displays include WWI Finland, WWII Germany & DEI

These examples have been made available by the generosity of some dedicated collectors who want to share their material with others - thank you

POW - WWII

NATO

Korean War 1950-1953

Suez Crisis 1956

St Lucia Censorship

CCSG Bulletin Index

The more than 350 members of the British based Forces Postal History Society study all aspect of worldwide military mail since it was founded in 1952

Civil censorship is the censorship of mail, that can include opening, reading or marking of mail emanating from or sent to civilians primarily during war time or periods of unrest though occasionally during other times too

The Dublin Censor Office

The Military Postal History Society, previously the War Covers Club, is based in the United States and concentrated on US military mail but now has a worldwide outlook

Mail from military forces can include mail during war time or during military campaigns as well as regular military postal markings as applied at APO's and FPO's onto mail to and from of military personnel, as well as Peacekeeping Missions of the United Nations, and does not always include censorship by opening or reading of the mail

This section has covers sent in by collectors who need like help to identify the markings

Can you identify the marks on this cover?

SITE MAP

Go here to see the original:
Welcome the Postal Censorship Site

censorship cases...

Lauren Myracle's teen/tween fiction series starting with ttyl, the first-ever novel written entirely in the style of instant messaging conversation, was the most frequently banned or challenged book in 2009 due to complaints of "frank, mature content."

And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson, a book about penguins raising a child, was the 2nd most banned for objections that it "makes homosexuality sound normal." It ranked no. 1 for most banned book in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The "Twilight" book series, which have turned into a blockbuster film franchise, ranks as the 5th most requested books to be banned by public libraries. Stephanie Meyer's stories of vampires and teen romance have been criticized for sexual content, religious views and being "unsuitable for the age group."

For years, various religious groups have protested the themes of wizardry in J. K. Rowling's books, which don't appear on the current top 10 list, but Harry Potter's tales remain in the Top 100 Most Challenged Books of the Decade.

"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship. As always, young readers will be the real losers." - Judy Blume

"Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech." -Benjamin Franklin

"Libraries are places of inclusion rather than exclusion." - American Library Association

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." - William O. Douglas

Original post:
Delete Censorship.org

Internet Censorship Debate

Censorship refers to any action taken by a society to control access to ideas and information. Throughout history, many different types of societies, including democracies, have used censorship in various ways. The issue is increasingly important due to the rapid development of new communication technology. As innovators continue to create new ways for people to share information, many people are now arguing over the issue of censorship.

For the proponents of censorship, restricting the access of information is something that can provide benefits to society. By censoring pornography on the internet, children are less likely to encounter it. By censoring certain types of images and videos, society can prevent offensive or vulgar material from offending those that it targets. For example, some would argue that society should censor material that is insulting to a particular religion in order to maintain societal harmony. In this way, censorship is viewed as a way to protect society as a whole or certain segments of society from material that is seen as offensive or damaging.

Some argue that censorship is necessary to preserve national security. Without using any kind of censorship, they argue that it is impossible to maintain the secrecy of information necessary for protecting the nation. For this purpose, censorship protects a state's military or security secrets from its enemies who can use that information against the state.

Those who are against censorship argue that the practice limits the freedoms of speech, the press and expression and that these limitations are ultimately a detriment to society. By preventing free access to information, it is argued that society is fostering ignorance in its citizens. Through this ignorance, citizens are more easily controlled by special interest groups, and groups that are able to take power are able to use censorship to maintain themselves. Additionally, they argue that censorship limits a society's ability to advance in its understanding of the world.

Another main issue for those who are against censorship is a history of censorship abuse. Those who argue against censorship can point to a number of examples of dictators who used censorship to create flattering yet untrue images of themselves for the purpose of maintaining control over a society. They argue that people should control the government instead of the government controlling its people.

See more here:
Internet Censorship Debate | Debate.org

By: Chad Hawthorne CS3604, Spring 1997

The definition of censorship from the American Library Association is, "The change in the access status of material, made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include: exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes." [3]

A debate on censorship could cover volumes of law books. There are hundreds of modern day cases on the subject, many of which have reached the Supreme Court. This page is not an attempt to delve into every aspect of censorship, a task that the author finds daunting. This resource explores American's beliefs on censorship, some examples of censorship in academia, and how the issue of censorship relates to digital media, including the Internet.

Censorship takes many forms in our country. From the outright banning of books and information, to the more subtle censorship of persuasion. Despite the importance our country places on freedom of thought and the freedom of speech, there have been countless efforts throughout our history to curb those freedoms. Frequently these efforts are successful, either in the outright banning of information or a curb in the freedoms once allowed. According to UPI the censorship of textbooks, novels, and classroom materials was at its highest level in 10 years in 1992.[2] An organization dedicated to protecting constitutional liberties, People for the American Way, reports that "'censors' were more active in 1991-92 than in any other year, with 376 'attacks on the freedom to learn in 44 states." [2] Not only are these 'censors' more active but their efforts are more successful than at any point in the four years previous to 1992. According to the People for the American Way, "Forty-one percent of the materials challenged were removed or restricted in some fashion."[2] Censorship is not limited to books and physical media, it also has effects on the Internet and the digital world. Censoring material on the Internet has become an important issue for countries around the world. Censorship is an ongoing issue and the battle to stop censorship is one that has roots in the very beginnings of our country.

To understand Americans beliefs on censorship it is valuable to learn exactly where these values originate and to learn how they are being challenged. Our beliefs in freedom of speech and our values that limit censorship are exemplified in our constitution and the associated bill of rights. The framers of the constitution drew their values and concepts of civil liberties from many sources, including the ancient Greeks and contemporary English philosophers. From the ancient Greeks came forth the idea of 'natural law' and the concept of equality. [5]

Another more contemporary influence was the writings of the 17th century English political philosopher, John Locke. One of Locke's major contributions was the idea, "[T]he end of law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge freedom."[5] This idea translated into our bill of rights, ratified December 15, 1791. The first item in the bill of rights states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "[5] This first amendment to the constitution serves as the basis for our freedoms of speech and the cornerstone of censorship debates in the United States. Many efforts to censor ideas, books, and electronic media have been challenged based on this amendment to the constitution.

One of these challenges to the law came in a 1982 Supreme Court case, Island Tree School District v. Pico. This case answered the question of who has the right to remove books from a school library and on what basis. The Island Tree Village school board removed from the school library ten books that it considered, "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."[4] Some of the books banned included classics such as, Kurt Vonegut's Slaughterhouse Five, Richard Wright's Black Boy, and Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice. The Supreme Court admitted that the school board has discretion to create and maintain a school curricclum and to further appropriate civic and moral values. However, the Supreme Court announced important limits on this discretion; it said that the First Amendment extends to "the right to receive ideas" in the context of a school library, where "a student can literally explore the unknown."[4] The court stated that school officials may not engage in the "narrowly partisan suppression of ideas" by removing books from the library simply because they contain ideas that they disagree with.[4] This case was the basis from which all other school censorship cases would be evaluated. Six years after this historic case there came another case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.[4] This case brought up the question of weather the school administration has the right to censor and limit the content of a school newspaper. It was decided that the school administration does have the right to review and edit the content of a school newspaper. The court qualified their decision by stating that administrators decisions must be based on, "legitimate pedagogical concerns."[4]

The fine line between "legitimate pedagogical concerns" and "narrowly partisan suppression" is constantly being redefined and challenged by new censorship cases. These cases involve old forms of media and information, as well as new digital media. Censorship is not promoted by just one political group or social advocacy organization, however, according to the ACLU, "the greatest threat today comes from the fundamentalist right, with its ideological hostility to other religious or philosophical systems, to homosexuality, to sex education, and indeed the basic idea of secular education."[4] The censorship debate in academia is frequently a debate about children. It concerns what is appropriate for children to read, learn, and see. It involves censoring teachers and school administrators all in the name of the children. This debate about what children should learn is the basis for censoring the Internet here in the United States. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 censored most forms of digital media on the basis that children were getting obscene material over the Internet.[1]

In the United States censorship of the Internet reared its head in 1996 with the Telecommunications Act. In the Telecommunications Act there is embedded in Title V a measure called the "Communications Decency Act" or CDA. The CDA limits "obscene, indecent and offensive material" on the Internet.[1] This act makes it illegal to distribute pornography or other indecent material to minors over the Internet or any other digital media. It is a bold step in censoring the cyber-world, and limiting free speech. There was a tremendous debate about weather this law was needed and what effect it would have on the Internet community. Previously there were few laws governing the Internet and it was generally considered as bastion of global freedoms. However, this new law signified an effort by the government to censor peoples thoughts and ideas, under the guise of protecting children.

Other countries are also trying to grapple with the problem of indecent material on the Internet.[6] All of these actions have the effect of limiting personal freedoms and censoring the general public. Although other governments have different values and ideas about freedom of speech, their values and decisions affect everybody in this increasingly global environment, including us in the United States. The Internet has given citizens of every country the ability to communicate and transfer information across borders. This presents a problem in the area of censorship. If one country passes a law governing the use of the Internet, how is it to be enforced in this global environment? For example , "A German court has already acted to prevent users in that country from accessing sexually explicit Internet discussion groups. The court forced CompuServe, a US-based online information service, to block access to about 200 of the thousands of "Usenet" groups to be found on the Internet."[6] Clearly the laws and regulations made by one country have an effect on the Internet community at large, regardless of where a user lives. The ethics and censorship beliefs that Americans hold so valuable can conceivably be challenged and thwarted by the laws of another country.

In conclusion, the censorship one country takes to limit personal freedoms can have a ripple effect through governments around the world. This censorship often stems from the need to protect children from obscenity and "adult" topics. The need to protect children is most obvious in the nations schools, where censorship is frequently carried out, and even upheld by the courts. Now, with the development of digital media, children are learning about the world from the privacy of their homes. Must this digital media be censored and freedoms curtailed to protect children? Hopefully a solution will be found that protects children and freedoms.

Continue reading here:
What is censorship? - Undergraduate Courses

Music provides a powerful form of expression that at its most basic level helps to entertain while containing the power to cause revolutions -- both cultural and political. Musics inherent power scares some people who are afraid of the powerful potential to shape attitudes and beliefs. The banning of music sets a dangerous precedent for the censorship of other forms of expression -- with dangerous consequences for a free society.

Why is music censored? Factors may include clashing moral values, racial motivations, generational value gaps, and fear.

Music has historically been, and continues to be, censored in an attempt to enforce morality. Its not a coincidence that music censorship in America began to accelerate during the 1950s, when traditional and conservative values began to unravel. At the time, order, strict obedience to authority, and conservative values were part of the accepted mindset. With the advent of rock n roll, however, young America began to loosen attitudes on issues relating to morality. Technology also played an important part in shaping the moral power struggle in the 1950s. For example, the 1920s era saw similar complaints against flappers and jazz musicians; however, radio wasnt as dominant at that time. In the 1950s, radio provided access to new types of music that challenged traditional morality and created the dynamics for music censorship.

Moral authorities aim to determine what behavior is acceptable for individuals and for society. Drugs, violence, and especially sex are topics moral authorities attempt to regulate. The end of the 1950s witnessed many members of society, particularly young adults and teens begin expressing new attitudes about these topics: Sex and drugs were no longer hidden and secretive acts, but something to be exposed and celebrated. This shift in outlook began breaking down the traditional moral order in many aspects of society especially music.

Race may seem a strange factor in music censorship, but it has played a significant role. In particular, the 1950s and early 1960s saw a new genre of music -- rhythm and blues -- emerge onto the national music landscape. R&B music included freely expressed sexual desires, clear drug references, and other features that were not as prevalent in other forms of popular music. R&B was and still isdominated by black musicians and traditionally was enjoyed mainly by black audiences. When its audience expanded to include mainstream white youths and young adults, this was a problem for many older whites who considered R&B music as a threat that corrupted young people and promoted immoral behavior.

This phenomenon prompted moral authorities to take action. In 1955, for example, Houstons Juvenile Delinquency and Crime Commission banned more than 30 songs many by black artists. A Chicago radio station promised to censor any controversial music, especially R&B, after receiving letters from angry listeners. (Sparrow)

Racially motivated music censorship is not a practice limited to the past. More recent cases involve MTV refusing to air videos from many black artists in the infancy of the network. In 1983, during a live interview, David Bowie suddenly asked, Why are there practically no black artists on the network? (Why it Took MTV So Long) Michael Jacksons Billie Jean from the album Thriller, released in 1983, is credited with being the first black video aired on MTV in heavy rotation.

The argument can be made that racial motivations also played a large role in the FBIs 1989 letter to the rap group N.W.A. (Nuzum) The F.B.I.s intent was to notify the rap group that their song Fuck Tha Police wasnt appreciated by the government. N.W.A. supporters argue the group was only expressing the frustrations of inner-city blacks and holding a mirror to their everyday reality. While no legal action took place, the example helps give context to the pressures behind government and music censorship.

Generational value gaps are a large factor in music censorship. Older generations use their power to try to censor the music of younger generations because the new music doesnt reflect the values of the old. The R&B and rock n roll of the 1950s and early 1960s contrasted greatly with the values of the greatest generation, which grew up during the Great Depression, fought in World War II, and started the production that led to Americas global economic dominance. As a result, obedience, respect for authority, and order were important values for this generation. Conversely, the music being made during the mid-1950s and early 1960s reflected attitudes craving individuality, questioning authority, and exploring freedom, drugs, and sex. In fact, many times the music flaunted these things to societys elders.

For example, in 1965, the Rolling Stones and the Who were banned from radio stations nationwide because of sexual references in their songs. (Sparrow) In 1968, The Doors song Unknown Soldier was banned from many stations because of its anti-war theme. (Sparrow) In 1971, the FCC threatened to take away broadcast licenses from stations playing songs that glorified drugs. In the same year, songs by John Lennon and Jethro Tull were changed without their knowledge or consent. Lennons music was changed by radio station themselves while Jethro Tulls songs were changed by their record label Chrysalis Records. (Nuzum) Its interesting to consider whether entering a museum and painting over an artists paintings would be considered acceptable.

The generational value gap continued in the 1970s and 1980s, when heavy metal rock and rap music were particular targets of moral authorities. A Prince album caused controversy at a 1984 PTA meeting in Cincinnati, Ohio. (Sparrow) The incident helped spark the debate for government censorship of music. The National Coalition on Television, which monitored the level of violence in music videos, asked for the federal government to regulate rock music on television. (Nuzum) Although the request ultimately wasnt acted upon, the demand demonstrates the push from some segments of the population, mostly conservative, for federal governmental action.

The following year, the Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC), pushed the music industry and the government to create a rating systems evaluating the content of artists. The PMRC also hoped for radio stations to become conscious about airing controversial content which would in turn censor artists hoping to become played on the radio. The PMRC was led by Tipper Gore and very influential wives of politicians and businessmen living in Washington, D.C. As a result of testimony before the U.S. Senate, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) began labeling albums that may be objectionable, including the infamous black-and-white label Parental Advisory: Explicit Content, created in1990 and still in use today.

Generational value gaps continue to influence music and music censorship. Today the focus is largely on gangster rap and sexually explicit hip-hop lyrics. In each case, the music being censored is typically regarded as the music of youth and features values different from those of previous generations.

At the root of all of the factors that lead to music censorship is fear. There is a fear by the authorities pushing for censorship that the music will affect young people negatively and prevent them from achieving a morally acceptable life. Many believe that without censorship, society itself will be changed significantly, and not for the better. Because the unknown creates uncertainty, fear of change remains common among those who attempt censorship, even when music merely reflects, rather than causes, changes in society. For example, country icon Loretta Lynns 1975 song The Pill was censored at many radio stations more than a decade after oral contraceptives became popular. (Sparrow)

From the Vietnam War to todays Iraq War, and from the advent of the sexual revolution to todays culture wars, music is recognized as a potential source of power to change values, ideas, and beliefs as well as to influence actions. Those who fear this change try to stop it by censorship, even when, as history has shown us, censorship is futile when change is inevitable.

-- R. Andre Hall, Journalism '09

Lombardi, Victor. "Music and Censorship." Noise Between Stations. 1 Dec. 1991. 22 Sep. 2009 http://www.noisebetweenstations.com/personal/essays/music_censorship.html.

Nuzum, Eric. "A Brief History of Banned Music in the United States by Eric Nuzum." Parental Advisory Music Censorship in America. 22 Sep. 1986 http://www.ericnuzum.com/banned/.

Sparrow, Kelly. "Music censorship (part 1) : A brief history." Examiner: Inside Source For Everything Local. 22 Sep. 2009 http://www.examiner.com/x-16046-Lexington-Live-Music-Examiner~y2009m8d26-Music-censorship-part-1--A-brief-history.

"Why It Took MTV So Long To Play Black Music Videos ." Find Articles at BNET. 9 Oct. 2006. 22 Sep. 2009 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_14_110/ai_n16807343/.

Read the original here:
Music Censorship - Lehigh University

Censorship is when an authority (such as a government or religion) cuts out or suppresses communication.

This has been done widely. All countries, religions and societies have their limits as to what can be said, or written or communication by art or nowadays by computer.

Certain facts are changed or removed on purpose. This may be done because it is considered wrong, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or other authority. This can be done for different reasons.

A censor is a person whose job is to look at all types of media and remove material. There are many reasons to censor something, like protecting military secrets, stopping immoral or anti-religious works, or keeping political power. Censorship is almost always used as an insult, and there is much debate over what censorship is and when it is okay.

When there is freedom of speech and freedom of the press, most information can published. However, even in developed countries with much freedom of the press, there are some things that cannot be published. For example, journalists are usually not allowed to publish many secrets about the military, like where troops will be sent on a mission. Pornography is censored in some countries because it is seen as not moral. For these reasons, the government might arrest anyone who publishes it.

Most often things are censored for one or more of the following reasons:

There is much debate about when censorship should be allowed. For example, U.S. President Richard Nixon censored the New York Times when they tried to publish articles about the Pentagon Papers, a group of classified military documents that showed that Nixon and the military lied about the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court in New York Times Co v. United States overturned the censorship, saying that Nixon had not shown it would be dangerous to the military, just embarrassing. In other countries, journalists and bloggers (who are usually not seen as journalists) are sometimes arrested for saying bad things about the government. In Egypt, Kareem Amer was famously arrested for insulting Islam and calling the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, a dictator. [2]

Governments are not the only ones who censor information. For example, when the history department at Middlebury College did not allow professors to accept Wikipedia as a source in papers, some said it was censorship.[3] This was because the department was telling professors (who usually have academic freedom) what works they should and should not accept. Sometimes, a group or a website will not allow some facts, articles, and pictures that they do not think should be seen. There is much debate over the difference between censorship and editing, that is, deciding what should or should not be published.

Original post:
Censorship - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia